Originally posted by Ah Chia:Don't tell me extremists from Palestine didn't shell Israeli border cities and that is not crimes against humanity.
Then Israel should end the occupation to avoid more retaliation.
Israel, as a sovereign country, is bound under UN laws to not attack civilians. Palestine, however, is overrun by militias. Even if Israel cedes most of its territory, the war will still go on. If Israel takes back its sovereignity and all the Jews go to Western Countries, Arab extremists will attack Western Countries. Does it ever end?
Then should Western Countries cede their own land becoz of their own Muslim minority? You are saying very senseless stuff here...
Even if Israel cedes most of its territory
I think that Israel should at the minimum go back to pre-1967 borders and agree to peaceful co-existence of Palestinian state.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Even if Israel cedes most of its territory
I think that Israel should at the minimum go back to pre-1967 borders and agree to peaceful co-existence of Palestinian state.
And you seriously think the fanatic Arabs are really going to keep the truce? History shows that the Arabs are always ALWAYS the first to attack and break any truce wadsoever.
History shows that the Arabs are always ALWAYS the first to attack and break any truce wadsoever.
Arabs first to attack?
Can you show me example?
You are quite biased against arabs.
It was a classic setting for international intrigue, a tile-roofed villa secluded among fog-swirled trees, ivy clinging to building wings clustered around a stunted steeple-like tower. The first group of conspirators landed at a French airfield outside Paris and reached the wall-enclosed villa in an unmarked car during the wee hours of October 22, 1956.
Later that Monday morning, French Foreign Minister Christian Pineau visited his office in Paris, then was chauffeured home to switch to his personal car. He soon was at the villa shaking hands with Israel’s 70-year-old Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, eye-patched Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan and Defense Ministry Director-General Shimon Peres.
British Foreign Minister Selwyn Lloyd, a key member of the third group of plotters, called his office in London to say he was staying home with a cold. He left England shortly after, to arrive at the villa that afternoon.
By the time the tense clandestine discussions–which also included French Premier Guy Mollet and British Prime Minister Anthony Eden–ended two days later in France and England, a secret accord had been reached. Champagne glasses were raised to celebrate a tripartite pledge to pursue what one chronicler called ‘the shortest and possibly silliest war in history.’ The target was Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt, which had become the symbol of Arab nationalism.
http://www.historynet.com/suez-crisis-operation-musketeer.htm
Originally posted by Ah Chia:History shows that the Arabs are always ALWAYS the first to attack and break any truce wadsoever.
Arabs first to attack?
Can you show me example?
You are quite biased against arabs.
And you are biased against Israel.
Israel first to attack?
Can you show me examples?
You are VERY biased against the Jewish state.
And you are biased against Israel.
I oppose their occupation of palestinian territory, oppressing of palestinians and war crimes against civilians.
Can you show me examples?
It was a classic setting for international intrigue, a tile-roofed villa secluded among fog-swirled trees, ivy clinging to building wings clustered around a stunted steeple-like tower. The first group of conspirators landed at a French airfield outside Paris and reached the wall-enclosed villa in an unmarked car during the wee hours of October 22, 1956.
Later that Monday morning, French Foreign Minister Christian Pineau visited his office in Paris, then was chauffeured home to switch to his personal car. He soon was at the villa shaking hands with Israel’s 70-year-old Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, eye-patched Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan and Defense Ministry Director-General Shimon Peres.
British Foreign Minister Selwyn Lloyd, a key member of the third group of plotters, called his office in London to say he was staying home with a cold. He left England shortly after, to arrive at the villa that afternoon.
By the time the tense clandestine discussions–which also included French Premier Guy Mollet and British Prime Minister Anthony Eden–ended two days later in France and England, a secret accord had been reached. Champagne glasses were raised to celebrate a tripartite pledge to pursue what one chronicler called ‘the shortest and possibly silliest war in history.’ The target was Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt, which had become the symbol of Arab nationalism.
http://www.historynet.com/suez-crisis-operation-musketeer.htm
“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”
“I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
“Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] ‘They didn’t even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.’” The New York Times, May 11, 1997
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html
The February 27, 1954 meeting among Ben Gurion, Sharett, Lavon and Dayan has already been mentioned in connection with Israel's invasion plans of Egypt and Syria. In that same meeting a concrete proposal was outlined to disrupt Israel's most peaceful neighbor at that time, Lebanon. In this case, Israel's hegemonic ambitions did not even pretend to wear the phony fig leaf of security or defense.
Then he [Ben Gurion] passed on to another issue. This is the time, he said, to push Lebanon, that is, the Maronites in that country, to proclaim a Christian State. I said that this was nonsense. The Maronites are divided. The partisans of Christian separatism are weak and will dare do nothing. A Christian Lebanon would mean their giving up Tyre, Tripoli, the Beka'a. There is no force that could bring Lebanon back to its pre-World War I dimensions, and all the more so because in that case it would lose its economic raison-d'etre. Ben Gurion reacted furiously. He began to enumerate the historical justification for a restricted Christian Lebanon. If such a development were to take place, the Christian Powers would not dare oppose it. I claimed that there was no factor ready to create such a situation, and that if we were to push and encourage it on our own we would get ourselves into an adventure that will place shame on us. Here came a wave of insults regarding my lack of daring and my narrow-mindedness. We ought to send envoys and spend money. I said there was no money. The answer was that there is no such thing. The money must be found, if not in the Treasury then at the Jewish Agency! For such a project it is worthwhile throwing away one hundred thousand, half a million, a million dollars. When this happens a decisive change will take place in the Middle East, a new era will start. I got tired of struggling against a whirlwind. (27 February 1954, 377)
The next day Ben Gurion sent Sharett the following letter:
To Moshe Sharett The Prime Minister
Sdeh Boker February 27, 1954
Upon my withdrawal from the government I decided in my heart to desist from intervening and expressing my opinion on current political affairs so as not to make things difficult for the government in any way. And if you hadn't called on me, the three of you, yourself, Lavon and Dayan, I would not have, of my own accord, expressed an opinion on what is being done or what ought to be done. But as you called me, I deem it my duty to comply with your wishes, and especially with your own wish as Prime Minister. Therefore, I permit myself to go back to one issue which you did not approve of and discuss it again, and this is the issue of Lebanon.
.........It is clear that Lebanon is the weakest link in the Arab League. The other minorities in the Arab States are all Muslim, except for the Copts. But Egypt is the most compact and solid of the Arab States and the majority there consists of one solid block, of one race, religion and language, and the Christian minority does not seriously affect their political and national unity. Not so the Christians in Lebanon. They are a majority in the historical Lebanon and this majority has a tradition and a culture different from those of the other components of the League. Also within the wider borders (this was the worst mistake made by France when it extended the borders of Lebanon), the Muslims are not free to do as they wish, even if they are a majority there (and I don't know if they are, indeed, a majority) for fear of the Christians, The creation of a Christian State is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant. In normal times this would be almost impossible. First and foremost because of the lack of initiative and courage of the Christians. But at times of confusion, or revolution or civil war, things take on another aspect, and even the weak declares himself to be a hero. Perhaps (there is never any certainty in politics) now is the time to bring about the creation of a Christian State in our neighborhood. Without our initiative and our vigorous aid this will not be done. It seems to me that this is the central duty - for at least one of the central duties, of our foreign policy. This means that time, energy and means ought to be invested in it and that we must act in all possible ways to bring about a radical change in Lebanon. Sasson ... and our other Arabists must be mobilized. If money is necessary, no amount of dollars should be spared, although the money may be spent in vain. We must concentrate all our efforts on this issue ........ This is a historical opportunity. Missing it will be unpardonable. There is no challenge against the World Powers in this ........Everything should be done, in my opinion, rapidly and at full steam.
The goal will not be reached of course, without a restriction of Lebanon's borders. But if we can find men in Lebanon and exiles from it who will be ready to mobilize for the creation of a Maronite state, extended borders and a large Muslim population will be of no use to them and this will not constitute a disturbing factor.
I don't know if we have people in Lebanon-but there are various ways in which the proposed experiment can be carried out.
D.B.G. (27 February 1954, 2397-2398)
USS Liberty -- Attack by Israeli forces, 8 June 1967
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-l/agtr5-k.htm
LIBYAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 114 shot down by Israel -1973
http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/plane.html
Originally posted by Ah Chia:And you are biased against Israel.
I oppose their occupation of palestinian territory, oppressing of palestinians and war crimes against civilians.
Can you show me examples?
It was a classic setting for international intrigue, a tile-roofed villa secluded among fog-swirled trees, ivy clinging to building wings clustered around a stunted steeple-like tower. The first group of conspirators landed at a French airfield outside Paris and reached the wall-enclosed villa in an unmarked car during the wee hours of October 22, 1956.
Later that Monday morning, French Foreign Minister Christian Pineau visited his office in Paris, then was chauffeured home to switch to his personal car. He soon was at the villa shaking hands with Israel’s 70-year-old Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, eye-patched Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan and Defense Ministry Director-General Shimon Peres.
British Foreign Minister Selwyn Lloyd, a key member of the third group of plotters, called his office in London to say he was staying home with a cold. He left England shortly after, to arrive at the villa that afternoon.
By the time the tense clandestine discussions–which also included French Premier Guy Mollet and British Prime Minister Anthony Eden–ended two days later in France and England, a secret accord had been reached. Champagne glasses were raised to celebrate a tripartite pledge to pursue what one chronicler called ‘the shortest and possibly silliest war in history.’ The target was Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt, which had become the symbol of Arab nationalism.
http://www.historynet.com/suez-crisis-operation-musketeer.htm
Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?
“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”
Was the 1967 war defenisve? — continued
“I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights
“Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] ‘They didn’t even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.’” The New York Times, May 11, 1997
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html
The February 27, 1954 meeting among Ben Gurion, Sharett, Lavon and Dayan has already been mentioned in connection with Israel's invasion plans of Egypt and Syria. In that same meeting a concrete proposal was outlined to disrupt Israel's most peaceful neighbor at that time, Lebanon. In this case, Israel's hegemonic ambitions did not even pretend to wear the phony fig leaf of security or defense.
The next day Ben Gurion sent Sharett the following letter:
This has no link to the current state of tensions between Israel and Palestine. This tripartite pact was to put down Nasir. Nasir had went on a nationalisation spree, even nationalising the Suez Canal. Though they were technically at a state of war(with no ongoing actives at that time), Nasir's act of nationalising the Suez Canal and preventing Israeli registered ships from passing thru the Suez led to much frustration to the Israelis. The Suez Canal was build by the French and British at much cost. The nationalisation of the Suez Canal led to much loss to the European powers. That is why they decided to join Israel. And you did not mention the fact the six-day war.
Egypt's president Nasser expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula in May 1967.[7] Nasser knew that the Soviet claims were false, but used them as a pretext to evict the peacekeeping force that had been stationed there since 1957, following a British-French-Israeli invasion which was launched during the Suez Crisis.[8] Egypt amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border[9] and closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, receiving strong support from other Arab countries.[10] Israel responded with a similar mobilization that included the call up of 70,000 reservists to augment the regular IDF forces.[11] On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack[12] against Egypt's airforce. Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.[13][14][15] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.
“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”
“I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?
“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”
Was the 1967 war defenisve? — continued
“I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
As i have said earlier, the Israel Egypt saga has no reference to modern day Israel Palestine problems. Israel and Egypt are now at a truce, have embassies in both countries, tourists flows between both countries, planes fly between cities of both countries. This extends to Jordan too.
Why are you posting about Egypt if it has no reference to this modern day crisis? It is clear that you are against the Jewish state by all means...
Originally posted by anonymous_dickhead:It’s simple, if the Palestinians does not want their children and woman shot, then stop using them as human shield and suicide bombers.
When you’re at war and in enemy’s territory, would you not shoot anyone suspicious (i.e. like a woman walking in the street when there is a curfew; whom may be carry bombs on her that could blow you and your soldiers into bits?)
That’s the reality of war.
WAR IS CREATED BECAUSE OF FARKING POLITICS, how can you say killing a civilian is a reality of war????
Originally posted by gUms:WAR IS CREATED BECAUSE OF FARKING POLITICS, how can you say killing a civilian is a reality of war????
civilian getting killed in a war is the reality of the world.
Originally posted by gUms:WAR IS CREATED BECAUSE OF FARKING POLITICS, how can you say killing a civilian is a reality of war????
Wouldn't be a war if there aren't any civilian casualties.
Originally posted by skythewood:civilian getting killed in a war is the reality of the world.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Wouldn't be a war if there aren't any civilian casualties.
Correct. This conflict might even continue long after we people are dead...
The last Arab/Israel war was in 1973. For the past 35 years, Israel has been fighting freedom fighters from Southern Lebonan and the occupied territories (West Bank & Gaza). Since 1973, Israel has not met any state armed forces to threaten its existence. So how Israel always says that it is under threat. From who? Hamas have only crude rockets and Hizbollah have inaccurate rockets.
Israel as a member of UN has to abide with all International Rules of War - Geneva Conventions. Israel cannot give accuse that the fighting was started by the freedom fighters and carried out bombardment from aircrafts, submarines, gunboats and helicopters. The Israel will follow the assault with tanks, bulldozers, and armoured personnel carriers to flaten the houses, buildings, street furniture etc.
I would like to see the arrest warrants be issued to Israel's leaders by the International Criminal Court.
Originally posted by BJK:The last Arab/Israel war was in 1973. For the past 35 years, Israel has been fighting freedom fighters from Southern Lebonan and the occupied territories (West Bank & Gaza). Since 1973, Israel has not met any state armed forces to threaten its existence. So how Israel always says that it is under threat. From who? Hamas have only crude rockets and Hizbollah have inaccurate rockets.
Israel as a member of UN has to abide with all International Rules of War - Geneva Conventions. Israel cannot give accuse that the fighting was started by the freedom fighters and carried out bombardment from aircrafts, submarines, gunboats and helicopters. The Israel will follow the assault with tanks, bulldozers, and armoured personnel carriers to flaten the houses, buildings, street furniture etc.
I would like to see the arrest warrants be issued to Israel's leaders by the International Criminal Court.
I would rather said that the disorganisation of Arabs countries and groups is an advantages to the Israel and its allies.
For years, the Arab leaders have never agreed on anything sustantial to join hands, instead, sabotages each other more often. In the theory of Sun Zi warfare, its stated that, "when a big family is disorganised, even an ants can conqueror it."
Therefore instead of blaming the Israel and US or UN so to speak, the Arabs or palestian groups should get together to form a solid allies without fear, by then, Israel will be shaking. The Arabs have failed to do it, the Israel took advantages of it, in the muslims world, they called each other Brothers, but are they true brothers??
International Criminal Court to arrest the israel leaders???, yo, u must joking.
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:Correct. This conflict might even continue long after we people are dead...
Hello, this conflict started before people are here.
Originally posted by BJK:The last Arab/Israel war was in 1973. For the past 35 years, Israel has been fighting freedom fighters from Southern Lebonan and the occupied territories (West Bank & Gaza). Since 1973, Israel has not met any state armed forces to threaten its existence. So how Israel always says that it is under threat. From who? Hamas have only crude rockets and Hizbollah have inaccurate rockets.
Israel as a member of UN has to abide with all International Rules of War - Geneva Conventions. Israel cannot give accuse that the fighting was started by the freedom fighters and carried out bombardment from aircrafts, submarines, gunboats and helicopters. The Israel will follow the assault with tanks, bulldozers, and armoured personnel carriers to flaten the houses, buildings, street furniture etc.
I would like to see the arrest warrants be issued to Israel's leaders by the International Criminal Court.
Your excuses for Arabs to drag on its attrition warfare with Israel are also crude.
Originally posted by googoomuck:Your excuses for Arabs to drag on its attrition warfare with Israel are also crude.
This conflict is potentially never-ending...
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:This conflict is potentially never-ending...
Unlikely , one side has tanks/planes/gunships/bombs/artillery while the other side has missiles that can't hit worth a damn.
One sides has a fully functional infrastructure and the other has a barely functioning one.
Won't take a genius to figure out who would eventually win out.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Unlikely , one side has tanks/planes/gunships/bombs/artillery while the other side has missiles that can't hit worth a damn.
One sides has a fully functional infrastructure and the other has a barely functioning one.
Won't take a genius to figure out who would eventually win out.
But the Arab side has an almost unlimited supply of guerilla forces... No conventional army can take in guerilla warfare... That is why there are things like special ops. But you can't possibly make the entire conventional Israeli army defeat them... Quite hard.
MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:But the Arab side has an almost unlimited supply of guerilla forces... No conventional army can take in guerilla warfare... That is why there are things like special ops. But you can't possibly make the entire conventional Israeli army defeat them... Quite hard.
MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction
Way i see it, these "unlimited supply" of guerilla forces are only dealing superficial damage to Israel.
It's annoying yes, but the damage is hardly enough to cripple Israel. It's even possible that the Israel politicans even desire it, because it's so much easier to gain votes by playing the "we're the victims and we need to strike back" stance
I think Israel is in more danger of being overwhelmed by cheap Muslim labourers and immigrants than of any real Middle Eastern Armies. It would be inevitable as Israel becomes more and more urbanised and its birth rate starts to fall.
Already, birth rates in the Gaza Strip is almost twice that of Israel. And it's surrounded by countries who has far higher birth rates that it has.
That, i reckon would be the real threat.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Way i see it, these "unlimited supply" of guerilla forces are only dealing superficial damage to Israel.
It's annoying yes, but the damage is hardly enough to cripple Israel. It's even possible that the Israel politicans even desire it, because it's so much easier to gain votes by playing the "we're the victims and we need to strike back" stance
I think Israel is in more danger of being overwhelmed by cheap Muslim labourers and immigrants than of any real Middle Eastern Armies. It would be inevitable as Israel becomes more and more urbanised and its birth rate starts to fall.
Already, birth rates in the Gaza Strip is almost twice that of Israel. And it's surrounded by countries who has far higher birth rates that it has.
That, i reckon would be the real threat.
The thing is Israel does not allow immigration into Israel if you(of ancestorial birth - father/mother/grandparents) are not Jewish. Illegal immigrants maybe, but there wouldn't be a huge influx of Arab Muslim labourers.
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:The thing is Israel does not allow immigration into Israel if you(of ancestorial birth - father/mother/grandparents) are not Jewish. Illegal immigrants maybe, but there wouldn't be a huge influx of Arab Muslim labourers.
Maybe so, but their economy will still need and will demand cheap labour. I find it unlikely they can satisfy that demand through internal employment.